This book investigates how Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners
make English requests, e.g., Can you open the door, by means of context-based and
formulae-based approaches in an experiment. Two groups of Chinese EFL learners
are tested in the foreign language environment. Their pragmatic behaviours like
strategy use, formulaic expressions, internal modifications, external modifications
and utterance length are examined. The usefulness of these approaches as well as
different request models of the learners are introduced.

Aijmer’s (1996) examination of spoken English finds that native speakers of English
make requests that are predominantly formulaic. However, in Chinese, request
imperatives are used to make bald on-record requests (Lee-Wong 1994: 509), such
as in 帶一點兒糖回來 Dai yidianr tang hui lai ‘bring a little sugar back’. Studies of cross-linguistic
variation in speech acts show that when adult L2 learners have not mastered certain
L2 pragmatic norms, they tend to rely on their L1 pragmatic practice. This should
then show improvement in their L2 pragmatic behaviours as their L2 learning
progresses, and a gradually reduced reliance on L1 pragmatic norms. This
discussion on the research of interlanguage pragmatics is then expanded and
explained as the author reports his present study.

The author meticulously designed an experiment to obtain samples from two groups
of Chinese EFL learners (a group of language students and a group of business
students) and a native speaker group. The language group consists of advanced
learners, who are third-year students in a Chinese-English translation and
interpretation programme at a tertiary institution in Macao. The language and
business learners have studied English for an average of 16.8 and 12.6 years,
respectively. The mother tongue of the learners is either Cantonese or Mandarin. The
native speaker group comprises native speakers of Australian English.

The research goals of Wang’s book concern four areas. First, to what extent the two
groups of Chinese EFL learners achieve native-like pragmatic behaviours in the
foreign language environment. Secondly, whether the language group outperforms
the business group in approximating native norms. Thirdly, to find out which of the
elements of request behaviours

are developed in the learner groups. Finally, Wang
investigates whether the scenario-based or the formulae-based approach has any
advantage for interlanguage pragmatics. Enhanced discourse completion tasks are
applied for eliciting request utterances from the different groups. The discourse
completion task instruments contain ten scenarios, such as in the post office, in a
restaurant, in a shop, to a technician, a retired actress, a police officer, and a
professor. For example, request an extra bag in the supermarket, request an account
statement in the bank, request to borrow money, or a reference letter from a
professor. Each of the scenarios (see Appendix 1 of the book) consists of a written
prompt that describes the situational context, an image and blank lines for
respondents to write down their utterances. The instructions explain to the
respondents that they are supposed to produce request utterances for scenarios that
would occur in an English-speaking country, just as they would in real-life situations.

The discourse completion tasks elicited 1016 valid instances of request utterances —
401 for the business group, 306 for the language group, and 309 for the native
speaker group. The results are analyzed in detail based on their pragmatic features
including utterance length, strategy types, formulaic expressions, syntactic
downgraders (conditionals and hi-clausal structures), lexical modifiers, and external
modifiers (supportive moves and information sequencing). Previous research is
reviewed wherever necessary to enhance the background of the research and the
reliability of the data analysis.

Concerning the request strategies, the two learner groups are quite native-like. The
author reveals the distribution patterns of ten strategy types and three strategy
categories (direct, conventionally indirect, non-conventionally indirect) in the learner
and the native speaker group, and examines inter-group differences using Chisquare
tests. Request utterances, for example, I want to trouble you to give me the
letter, Could I possibly borrow $50?, are used to illustrate the qualitative features of
the respondent groups’ use, as well as analyse the lexical realizations of the major
strategy types. It is found that the two learner groups strategy uses are similar to
those of native speakers. The two groups do, however, differ from the native
speakers in their use of strategies in several individual scenarios. The group in the
EFL learning environment does not show a native-like use of request strategies even
though they are advanced learners who had spent an average of 17 years studying
English and training in translation and interpreting. There are two likely factors that
can account for this: L1 transfer and L2 instruction. The EFL learners exhibit L1
pragmatic interference on at least the strategic, lexical and sociopragmatic levels.
The language learners come slightly closer to a native pattern strategy use than the
business learners, both in the scenarios as a whole and in individual scenarios.

Both learner groups use request formulae in a distinctively non-native-like manner.
The learner groups could not use some of the longer and more syntactically complex
formulae, such as I was wondering if, Would it be Adj if and Would you be Adj to VP,
that native speakers commonly use for elaboration and deferential requests. The
learners were also unable to utilize some scenario-specific formulae. As for the
internal modifications, the two learner groups also differ in several ways from native
speakers in their use of downgraders, such as possibly, maybe, just, at all, look, and
you know.

In addition, supportive moves and information sequencing are employed for the
analysis of external modifications. Both learner groups employ supportive moves
more frequently and in more elaborate configurations than the native group.
Disarming strategies such as I know this is a big ask, and I completely understand if
you say no are used by the native speakers only. On the other hand, for the
information sequencing, the two learner groups favoured supportive moves when
making requests, while the native speaker group would often choose to omit them.
However, when the native speakers do use supportive moves, the positions in which
they use them are similar to those of the learner groups — the post-posed position is
favoured in the service scenarios, while the pre-posed and hi-positions predominate
in the favour-asking scenarios.

Furthermore, the author revisits basic questions put forth by Kasper and Schmidt
(1996) that pertain to interlanguage pragmatics studies. Among them, for the
question “Does the L1 influence L2 learning?” the author compares the result of the
present study with those of Lee-Wong (1994), Zhang (1995), and Yu (1999). In
general, Yu (1999) and the present study both uncover similar results, i.e., that
Chinese EFL learners noticeably increase their use of conventionally-indirect
strategies and reduce their use of direct strategies in English in comparison to what
Chinese speakers generally do in their L1 (cf. Lee-Wong 1994; Zhang 1995). In
terms of lexical interference, Wang explains that L1 to L2 transfer can also occur in
terms of lexical choices that reflect learners’ L1 origin. The same is observed in the
present study, e.g., the Chinese EFL learners use requests like I want and I would
VP much more frequently than the native English speakers. These two formulae
mirror two common Chinese expressions: 我要 wo yao ‘I want’ and 我想要 wo xiang yao ‘I think
[that I] want’ in terms of semantic meaning and situational usage. The EFL learners
also use certain words that suggest L1 interference, for example, the expression 給我一個機會 gei
wo yige jihui ‘give me a chance’ is commonly used in situations where the speaker
acknowledges guilt, will stop making the mistake, and requests the hearer not to
impose punishment. L1 interference in L2 also occurs at the sociopragmatic level
where the learners’ knowledge influences the way they perceive social and
contextual factors in L2 situations. The samples centering on

“police” and “bank”
given by the learners and the native speakers differ markedly in their levels of
politeness and directness. Differing from Yu’s (1999) study, however, Wang found
more direct strategies and fewer conventionally-indirect strategies than Yu’s (1999)
study in both EFL learners and native English speakers. Such differences depend on
the scenario types used for data elicitation in the two studies.

At last, the author evaluates the two major approaches — the context-based
approach and the formulae-based approach. The former provides evidence that
learners do not vary their linguistic behaviour to the same extent that native speakers
do, and that they do not perceive contextual factors in a native-like manner. In this
sample, linguistic behaviour occurs in patterns, suggesting that learners need to
adjust these patterns more towards native norms. As for the formulae-based
approach, the results of the study show in different contexts that formulaic language
provides an important means for learners to achieve native-like request behaviours
for their responses.

It is a virtue of Wang’s book that he builds his research on the basis of a solid grasp
of previous research on interlanguage pragmatics. This allows him to provide a
concise review of and critical view on the research background. The clear and step-
by-step analysis of the request samples provides the reader with a deep
understanding of request strategies in Chinese EFL learners. At the same time, the
author does not lose sight of the L1 and L2 comparison. Wang has genuine empirical
evidence for the usefulness of the context-based and formulae-based approaches
and contributes a study for cross-cultural pragmatics, politeness and language
pedagogy.